nekom:sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Tough nut to crack, though. Background checks, for instance, aren't the end all beat all. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for enhanced background checks, but the newton massacre was carried out by lawfully purchased guns stolen from a crazy person's mother. Assault weapons bans may have some merit, but you could easily carry out the same sort of mass murder with a few semiautomatic pistols. Now I'm not saying "It's an impossible task, so why even try?", I'm saying we need some better answers. I don't really have them, at least none that are the slightest bit politically viable here. Banning all but single shot rifles and shotguns would probably help immensely, but fat chance of ever seeing that happen here.

I recently dumped a bunch of people off of face book because they kept posting wildly outlandish "Libruls R stealing R guns" posts. When I suggested that maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about gun laws that worked well they freaked out. According to them crime is through the roof, society is falling apart and a Mad Max reality will be here by next tuesday. Having been a teen during the crack fueled gang violence of the 80's I don't understand how an intelligent person can compare then to now. I just don't have time for stupid any more.

pdee:But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation. That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available. Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent. Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Dimensio:soakitincider: 2nd amendment:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Please explain how banning all semi-automatic firearms and handguns and prohibiting you from accessing any functional firearm in your home is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms.

Keep and bear arms does not mean going sleeveless... it means we have the right to keep and bear guns, including semi-autos. It is designed solely to protect our home (in this case, the US) from an invading body (foreign or domestic).

VIolent crime is down overall, great... find me the numbers by state, and then talk.

the_foo:CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

Wayne 985:Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison. Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime. Merely owning a weapon harms nobody. If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

udhq:pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation. That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available. Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent. Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.

CPennypacker:the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".

People_are_Idiots:udhq: pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation. That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available. Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent. Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.

I would suggest you read upthread a bit. While you're correct that a person could use a different method, those methods are significantly, even exponentially less lethal.

Dimensio:CPennypacker: the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I assume that you also believe that Tea Party members who dispute the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, despite a court ruling contradicting their position, are not "fools".

Their interpretation of its constitutionality is not why I think they are fools.

I do not understand why, despite so much data, gun control opponents do not recognize that by implementing strict regulation on civilian firearm ownership, the suicide rate of the United States of America could be reduced to the rates seen in France, Japan, Belgium or New Zealand.

cman:dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

I see you missed the history of this post. The discussion started with the premise that if facts are presented that compare race and crime the racist charge will be brought out no matter how accurate the facts are.

CPennypacker:the_foo: CPennypacker: It just has context that I interpret differently.

If you were advocating the repeal of the 2nd amendment, that would be an intellectually honest position which people could have an actually discussion about. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears shouting "LALALA I can't hear you" and it makes you look like a child.

Why do all of you people act like the Heller decision wasn't split and my opinion is that of a fool? Read a farking book.

I've read a number of books on the topic. Heller was split, but your understanding of the minority opinion doesn't seem to be much better than your understanding of the majority one. "Living with Guns: A Liberal Case for the Second Amendment" would be an excellent starting point.

Dusk-You-n-Me:pdee: Let me get this straight. In a city where it is practically impossible to get a gun and is less than 50 miles from 2 other states slightly more than 1/2 of guns recovered came from other states.

Correct. Which is why we need UBC on a national level.

What good does that do?

If I live in Chicago, I can go to another city in IL and buy guns and bring them back to Chicago.

I can also get my friend, relative, business partner in a border state to ILLEGALLY buy a gun on my behalf which I then bring into Chicago.

Do you really think the guy illegally selling me a gun is going to do a background check on me if the law begins to require one?

The big question is, why don't the other cities in IL or those border states and their cities have a crime rate like Chicago?

CPennypacker:dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

dittybopper:CPennypacker: dittybopper: CPennypacker: Because its not the race, its the economic condition.

Actually, it's *NOT* economic condition. There are more than twice as many whites living below the poverty line than blacks (10 million vs. 4 million).

I did that calculation a while back:

In the United States, there are more than twice as many whites living in the lowest poverty level (50% or lower than the official poverty level) than blacks (10.120 million vs. 4.215 million) Source: US Census Bureau Poverty Tables.

Tomahawk513:While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

So what does the suicide attempt rate look like in countries like Japan and South Korea, which both have HIGHER suicide rates than we do and incredibly strict gun control? How about Australia, which has a similar suicide rate and strict gun control?

There must be an unbelievably high number of people injured or permanently disfigured from all the failed suicide attempts.

sammyk:ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"

Well I'm glad they'll be satisfied if they're given expanded background checks.

While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

Huh? No matter how you kill yourself, you're dead! I am not clear on what you are trying to get at here...

The point he's making is that you are more likely to successfully commit suicide if you have a gun. It's quick and usually instant, and that's the key.

When people try to jump off a building, there's a far better chance they won't go through with it. Someone might talk them down, or they will find that they can't access the roof. Some bridges have installed fences specifically designed to prevent suicides. Here's where it get insteresting. When people try to committ suicide and are prevented, they often don't try again. That small inconvenience gives them enough time to reconsider. When suicide becomes work, people decide they'd rather live.

If you look at number 3 in this article (it's Cracked, but the information is solid) you'l see several historical instances of suicide rates dropping when it stopped being convenient. People who would have killed themselves in their gas ovens didn't find another method when those were phased out. Absent a quick and easy solution, they kept on going.

That's the argument about suicide and guns. Guns make it easy, and you are less likely to be interrupted or prevented. This is also why they have all these stats about how you are more likely to be killed by your own gun than to use it to kill an intruder or attacker. It's because of the suicide rate.

Tomahawk513:pdee: I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Suicide != Euthanasia

/but you knew that//but in case you didn't, here

From your link:

2. painless death.A 12 gauge in the mouth through the brain stem would certainly qualify as 'painless death'.

No, you cannot. At least not in the sense you're talking about. Those guns are not shipped to your house the way they were before 1968. They are shipped to a dealer in your state who then does paperwork and a background check.

Do people like you ever get tired of being grossly and inexcusably misinformed?

udhq:"Gun involved homicides have increased since falling to a low in 1999."

"Guns used in a rising percentage of violent crime." (FL)

This one is bit more complicated, but it shows that while gun violence is down, it is not down at a rate comparable with overall violent crime.

Do you realize none of those show that 'a higher proportion of violent crime than ever before is being committed with guns'. While the trend appears to be moving upward from a low in 1999, they would tend to disagree with your original assertion.

mrshowrules:HeadLever: mrshowrules: If you don't think the US has a problem with gun violence,

The state I live in has a gun violence rate on par with Canada. Do we have a problem too?

/Also sports a Brady Score of 2.

Cherry picking.

You are correct. By eliminating all states with relatively low rates of violent crime despite relatively few restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership as outliers, a correlation between violent crime and few restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership is much more easily established.

sammyk:Interesting thing about background checks. 20 years ago the Brady act was signed into law implementing actual background checks. Lo and behold 20 years later gun violence is cut in half. But I am sure there will be someone here shortly to tell us the 2 things are in no way connected.

People_are_Idiots:Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.

Hanging/slitting wrists are NOT easy. A lot of people are suicidal, but still retain their natural aversion to self-injurious behavior.

Very few drugs can actually be consumed to a high enough concentration to be fatal without inducing vomiting.

My point was that, given the narrow window between ideation and action that typically exists, forcing that trip to the store is often enough of a hurdle to save a life. Remember, these are typically people who suffer from depression. Taking any kind of action requires an extraordinary amount of effort, and they are often easily deterred.

UBC doesn't stop every criminal that wants a gun from getting one. Nothing stops that. But it does make it harder for them to do so. And on a macro scale, this means some amount of criminals will not be able to get that gun. And on a macro scale, that reduces gun violence. Which is the goal.

mrshowrules:BraveNewCheneyWorld: mrshowrules: Those examples are all hyphenated. I don't think it is hyphenated in the actual 2nd Amendment text.

By all means, explain the difference and meanings of well regulated and well-regulated. I expect citations.

I select the 2nd amendment as my first citation without the hyphen. I select all your examples as my second series of citations.

You missed that whole part where I asked you to explain the difference. Also, by citation, you need to cite something that backs your reasoning for differing definitions, not just examples of hyphens in use.

GoldSpider:"The militia" at the time the Constitution was written was "everyone capable of firing a gun". It was not an organized body.

It was an organized body, just not one organized by the government.

To the folks who say the militia part of the 2nd A means 'a group organized by the government, and therefore regulated by the government', how on earth do you come to that conclusion? The guys who wrote that just got done fighting to get away from a government, partially by using independent militias. If they thought militias were important (and I think it's reasonable to say they did, what with mentioning them in the 2nd A), why on earth would they turn around and put them in control of the body they were just used to fight? When you look at what a militia was and how they were used, the idea that they are part of and controlled by the government is just asinine.

You can argue that to have the right to keep an bear arms requires you to actually be in an active, well-regulated militia (I won't agree with you, but I'll admit that it's not the worst argument I've ever seen), but to then say that militia is supposed to be under control of the government is just ridiculous.

pdee:Tomahawk513: pdee: I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Suicide != Euthanasia

/but you knew that//but in case you didn't, here

From your link:

2. painless death.A 12 gauge in the mouth through the brain stem would certainly qualify as 'painless death'.

pedrop357:Tomahawk513: While those are alternatives to shooting oneself, the fact remains they are far less lethal means of committing suicide. For example, while guns are involved in only 2-5% of all suicide attempts, they are responsible for over 50% of successful attempts. Other methods are much less lethal. There is a strong correlation between ease of firearm access and suicide.

So what does the suicide attempt rate look like in countries like Japan and South Korea, which both have HIGHER suicide rates than we do and incredibly strict gun control? How about Australia, which has a similar suicide rate and strict gun control?

There must be an unbelievably high number of people injured or permanently disfigured from all the failed suicide attempts.

Well, Japan has a long, storied history of ritualistic suicide, but other than that I don't pretend to be an expert in the societal influences behind suicide in other countries. However, looking here, The majority of other first-world countries, especially those in Europe, have lower suicide rates which would seem to support the idea that fewer guns equals fewer suicides. But that's only part of the picture, it doesn't include all the unique societal factors that contribute to suicide rates. Additionally, I haven't called for fewer guns. I have called for a Mental Health check as part of a background check though, I think that could significantly decrease gun deaths both from suicides and from "crazed gunman" scenarios similar to Newtown or Aurora.